Volvo Cars Should Hire Volvo Trucks' Marketing Geniuses

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Do you remember the last Volvo commercial you saw? Or any Volvo commercial?

If the answer is “no,” you clearly haven’t seen the videos offered up by Volvo Trucks, which somehow manage to make 18-wheelers seem as alluring as a two-seat droptop. By staging stunts that compel viewers to seek out a heavy truck license, the company’s online videos have given the truck maker a strong media presence and plenty of word of mouth.

It’s too bad that Volvo Cars (long since snatched from under the Volvo Group corporate umbrella) can’t do the same thing.

The latest Volvo Trucks video features a paragliding stuntman towed by one of the company’s newest big rigs. To show off the performance of the vehicle’s I-Shift dual clutch transmission — which nearly eliminates torque loss under harsh driving conditions — the truck and “passenger” sail through the mountains of Croatia, dodging vehicles, cyclists and, at one point, a bridge.

The paraglider barks commands at the driver through a mic, pushing her to maintain certain speeds on the winding roadway so as to avoid an untidy demise.

Other entries in the company’s “Live Test” series show Volvo trucks punching through concrete buildings, high-centering themselves on a guardrail (check out that skid plate performance, everyone), fording deep water, suspending tight rope-walking ballerinas, and ferrying action star Jean-Claude Van Damme (on two trucks at the same time).

Contrast this with Volvo Cars, which finds itself at the beginning of a long-awaited American sales turnaround. No one can deny the new S90/V90 are attractive vehicles, but the ads seem to showcase the roads less traveled more than the vehicle on them. For some, that works. Sweden is stark and majestic, and sure, who doesn’t long for an adventure into the beautiful backcountry? There’s a romantic feeling to all of that.

Still, it’s hard not to think of the automaker’s brilliant 1960s commercials that focused solely on the car and its capabilities. That campaign, which featured one 121 Amazon being driven on a torturous rally-style commute (“drive it like you hate it”), helped introduce the model to a skeptical America.

Well, Volvo needs America to learn to love it all over again, so maybe it’s time to take a page from the no-longer-affiliated Volvo Trucks. That, or return to the marketing brilliance of the ’60s. Somehow.

[Image capture: Volvo Trucks/ YouTube]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 13 comments
  • Stuki Stuki on Nov 30, 2016

    In not too long, when CAFE has incrementally crept up to make all trucks smaller than class 8 too expensive, Volvo may just have a hit on it's hands in Texas if they stick a pickup bed on one of these..

    • Lou_BC Lou_BC on Nov 30, 2016

      @stuki - International tried that. I've seen a few CXT's and MXT's. I'd love to own either one. There is a guy in my town with a restored B- Model Mack on a short wheel base. That would be my ultimate dream truck.

  • Flipper35 Flipper35 on Nov 30, 2016

    I remember the one where they drive off a parking ramp so show how safe they are. That's about the only Volvo commercial I remember.

  • Teddyc73 As I asked earlier under another article, when did "segment" or "class" become "space"? Does using that term make one feel more sophisticated? If GM's products in other segments...I mean "space" is more profitable then sedans then why shouldn't they discontinue it.
  • Robert Absolutely!!! I hate SUV's , I like the better gas milage and better ride and better handling!! Can't take a SUV 55mph into a highway exit ramp! I can in my Malibu and there's more than enough room for 5 and trunk is plenty big enough for me!
  • Teddyc73 Since when did automakers or car companies become "OEM". Probably about the same time "segment" or "class" became "space". I wish there were more sedans. I would like an American sedan. However, as others have stated, if they don't sell in large enough quantities to be profitable the automakers...I mean, "OEMs" aren't going to build them. It's simple business.
  • Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
  • Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
Next